HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust HCDC PacketIf you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this program or event, please contact
Brianna Thul at brianna-thul@iowa-city.org or 319-356-5230. Early requests are strongly encouraged to
allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Housing & Community Development Commission Meetings
Regular: September 16 / October 21
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION (HCDC)
August 19, 2021
Regular Meeting – 6:30 PM
Environmental Education Center
2401 Scott Boulevard SE
AGENDA:
1.Call to Order
2.Consideration of Meeting Minutes: June 17, 2021
3.Public Comment of Items not on the Agenda
Commentators shall address the Commission for no more than 5 minutes.
Commissioners shall not engage in discussion with the public concerning said items.
4.Welcome New Members
HCDC will welcome two new members, Kaleb Beining and Becci Reedus. This item
provides an opportunity for new and existing Commissioners to introduce
themselves.
5.Officer Nominations
Per HCDC Bylaws, the Commission nominates and elects a Chair and Vice Chair
each July. The Commission will nominate and vote for these two positions.
6.Unsuccessful and Delayed ProjectsThe City’s Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy requires that all CDBG projectsexpend a minimum of 50% of the assistance provided for the proposed project byMarch 15 each year. Commissioners will hear another progress report from LittleCreations Academy as requested at the March HCDC meeting. The Commission mayrecommend the recapture and re-use of funds.
7.Discuss Locally Funded Voucher Program
The Commission wishes to discuss a potential recommendation to Council to create
a locally funded voucher program. Steve Rackis, Housing Administrator of the Iowa
City Housing Authority will be available to answer questions.
8. Discuss Affordable Housing Steering Committee Recommendations
This item provides an opportunity to discuss recommendations from the Affordable
Housing Steering Committee.
2
If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this program or event, please contact
Brianna Thul at brianna-thul@iowa-city.org or 319-356-5230. Early requests are strongly encouraged to
allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Housing & Community Development Commission Meetings
Regular: September 16 / October 21
9.FY22 Mid Year Funding Round
Staff will provide an overview of the upcoming schedule for the mid-year funding round
and answer any questions from Commissioners about the process.
10. Iowa City Council Meeting Updates
Two commissioners are assigned each month to monitor Council meetings. This
agenda item provides an opportunity to review assignment schedule and for brief
updates on City Council activity relevant to HCDC business. Commissioners shall not
engage in discussion with one another concerning said items.
11. Housing & Community Development Information
Commissioners shall not engage in discussion with one another concerning said
items.
12. Adjournment
Housing and Community Development Commission
August 19, 2021 Meeting Packet Contents
Agenda Item #2
•June 17, 2021 HCDC Draft Meeting Minutes
Agenda Item #5
•HCDC Bylaws
Agenda Item #6
•August 12, 2021 Staff Memo Regarding Little Creations Academy Kitchen
Remodel
•March 11, 2021 HCDC Meeting Minutes Excerpt
•March 5, 2021 Staff Memo Regarding Little Creations Academy Kitchen Remodel
•October 25, 2020 HCDC Meeting Minutes Excerpt
•Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy
Agenda Item #8
•June 18, 2021 Affordable Housing Steering Committee Update from
Commissioner Nkumu
•Preliminary Recommendations and Concerns from a Subcommittee of the
Affordable Housing Steering Committee
Agenda Item #9
•FY22 Mid Year Funding Round Tentative Timeline
•CDBG/HOME Evaluation Criteria as Approved by HCDC (Located in Applicant
Guide)
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JUNE 17, 2021 – 6:30 PM
ELECTRONIC MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Aguilar, Megan Alter, Matt Drabek, Lyn Dee Hook Kealey, Nasr
Mohammed, Peter Nkumu, Maria Padron, Kyle Vogel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Theresa Lewis
STAFF PRESENT: Steve Rackis, Brianna Thul
OTHERS PRESENT: Sara Barron, Simon Andrew
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 8-0 the Commission recommends approval of the Iowa City Housing Authority Annual Plan
for FY21.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Padron called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: APRIL 15, 2021:
Drabek moved to approve the minutes of April 15, 2021. Vogel seconded and a vote was taken and the
motion passed 6-0 (Aguilar and Kealey not present for this vote).
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Sara Barron (Executive Director, Affordable Housing Coalition) has been providing the Commission with
updates about how the Iowa Rent and Utility Assistance rollout is going and in a previous month there
was dire news about how long it was taking but today she’d like to share a much more positive update.
The State has contracted with the local community action program HACAP and others throughout the
State to process the applications that have been submitted since the end of March. They are starting to
hear from a lot of tenants and landlords that they are receiving payment for back rent and also many
payments have gone out to utility providers as well, for back payments. The reason this is so important is
because number one, tenants need to have their rent paid, landlords need to receive those rents. But
also the eviction moratorium is coming to an end on June 30 and when it ends people will no longer be
protected from eviction if they've been unable to pay their rent because of COVID loss of income.
Therefore, the Coalition and community partners are working hard to ensure that everyone who is eligible
is able to apply for this assistance, they're working to sort through those records where maybe both the
landlord and the tenant have applied but their applications haven't been matched up with each other, so it
comes across as an incomplete application. They are also helping people to do all the different steps they
need to do to get that final payment issued. Barron noted it's been so incredibly great to see people
recognize that all the sudden that five months of rent they haven't been able to pay has been settled.
Barron acknowledged there will be some people who are still having an eviction filed against them but
they are also working really quickly to put some other things in place that can help to prevent eviction for
nonpayment of rent. This will require a lot of cooperation among tenants, landlords and social services
providers, but they believe they can do it because they believe, number one, it’s the right thing to do and
Agenda Item #2
Housing and Community Development Commission
June 17, 2021
Page 2 of 8
2
number two logic on their side because if an eviction is filed, and if a tenant is evicted, the landlord won't
be able to receive that State money to pay the back rent. So, it's in everyone's best interest to participate
in the program and give it time to work so that people can stay safely housed and landlords can receive
the rent that they're owed. Barron will keep the Commission posted but wanted to share that good update
about the progress that the State has made in getting those rents paid. Just a reminder, this is really an
economic stimulus for the rental community here, it really benefits everyone from the tenant to the
landlord to all the people the landlord pays, so really the whole community. It’s in everyone's best interest,
whether they're personally behind in their rent or not to support this program and make sure that these
dollars come through the people who need them.
REVIEW AND CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON APPROVAL OF IOWA CITY
HOUSING AUTHORITY ANNUAL PLAN FOR FY21:
The Iowa City Housing Authority is required to update their annual plans under the Quality Housing and
Work Responsibility Act of 1998. Their annual report provides details about current programs, population
served, annual application for grants to support improvement, and ICHA’s strategy for addressing housing
needs of current currently assisted families and the larger community.
Steve Rackis (Housing Administrator, Housing Authority) spoke about the Annual Plan. He stated it's
really a report, the planning document for the City of Iowa City is the City Steps. The Housing Authority
participates in the City Steps and HUD requires that they are substantially equivalent. He is able to
answer any questions the Commission has on the report.
Vogel noted he has worked a lot of years with Rackis on getting people affordable housing and thinks one
of the most telling things in the whole report is how they view affordable housing in Iowa City, which is this
concept that there's not enough affordable housing. However what Vogel noted from the report is there's
not enough funds to get people off the waitlist to get into the affordable housing. In his complexes alone
they have 42 vacant units that are vacant either right now or vacant by August 1, that fall way below the
affordable housing rent amounts and the issue right now for them is just people that have HCV aren't
already living somewhere. This Commission talks a lot about how to produce more affordable housing
units but right now Iowa City is sitting from a 2% vacancy rate to almost double digits. The problem is how
to get more HCV vouchers into the hands of people to allow them to take these vacant units. Vogel
believes there's 700 families that are on the waitlist right now for vouchers.
Rackis noted it’s actually more than that because they pulled people off the waiting list for the first time in
over a year. However, he acknowledged Vogel’s comments about the vacancies and admitted the City is
struggling even with their public housing units, where the rent is subsidized and that low-income families
are choosing not to rent the City units with the subsidized rent. The City units, the newest ones were built
in 1995, are mostly one-bathroom units and people are used to and want two-bathroom units. Rackis
noted supposedly within the Biden administration's budget for HUD, they are proposing additional
vouchers. The City did get additional vouchers, emergency housing vouchers, but those are for
chronically homeless and people fleeing domestic violence, and that was only 69 vouchers. He stated
there is a prom ise within the Biden administration to increase the number of vouchers, the City just has
1215 vouchers. They have money to support more than that, but they cannot lease over the number of
vouchers that they have. Rackis also stated that Vogel is talking about the difference of building
affordable housing, which is very difficult, and the Housing Choice Voucher Program, which is really not
an affordable housing program, it's a program that makes housing affordable. This solution is to help
people pay for their rent, to help subsidize the rent, and not necessarily build more units. The City can
house 1400-1500 families for $8 million whereas they cannot build that many units with $8 million.
Vogel agreed and noted they run into the same issue with three bedrooms and one bath. Everybody
wants three-bedroom, three bath or three-bedroom, two baths. He noted it is frustrating, but he is not sure
where they are at in the City Steps because once again, they write these plans for these five years of City
Steps and from when that report was put together. When that report was put together, they weren't in the
same situation with vacancies, but that is the regulations they have to follow.
Housing and Community Development Commission
June 17, 2021
Page 3 of 8
3
Thul noted that typically once a year they do get feedback on the Consolidated Plan to see if anything has
changed in priorities, although normally there isn’t a global pandemic right after the plan is created, but
certainly there'd be some opportunity for feedback.
Padron asked if they had more vouchers would there still be these vacancies because people still
wouldn't want those units, is that the issue.
Vogel replied if even 300 of the people on the waitlist were willing to take a two-bedroom, one bath, or a
one-bedroom, one bath unit they would still be able to get people into homes. The issue is they are at a
limit of how many vouchers they can give out. So then it comes back to the question is there a position for
the City to have funds available to create a localized voucher program, outside of the HCV program from
the federal level. Vogel is not sure how it would work, to do vouchers outside the HUD program, but if the
City had a pool of money to do subsidized housing, could they. This Commission hears about the fee in
lieu of stuff and perhaps the Housing Committee will discuss at some point.
Thul noted the conversation may be veering to where if they want to talk more about this, they should put
it on an agenda to be fully disclose the conversation to the public. They can definitely continue the
discussion about this specific report today and if the Commission wants make a recommendation to City
Council or propose some modifications to the report.
Padron asked why they are voting on a recommendation to the City Council if this is just a report, is it a
HUD requirement.
Rackis replied yes, it is covered in the Housing Commission bylaws that any changes to the
administrative plan, or admissions and continued occupancy plan for public housing, any policy decisions
have to go through HCDC. This is not really policy, but it's a report on how policy was implemented.
Therefore, as part of the bylaws, it has to come to the Commission first and then to Council second.
Padron asked could the Commission recommend this report to the City but also with a recommendation
that they look into creating a local program with local money to create more vouchers. Would that be
under the Public Housing Authority strategies for addressing the housing needs of currently assisted
families in the larger community.
Vogel replied they didn’t know if this would be something that would fall under the Public Housing
Authority because this would not be something that would currently exist under the under the Housing
Authority. Rackis confirmed all of their funding is federal at this point.
Vogel asked if the City did implement something like that though, could the ICHA, as the as our public
housing authority also administer this program.
Rackis thinks City Council would want to keep it in the Housing Authority as they are the staff that's
trained but right now, the number of vouchers that they have is pushing the upper limits of the number of
households each case manager has. Currently each case manager has about 300 households, so more
vouchers would require potentially more staff, which adds more cost.
Vogel is asking if this something that could be included in that report as a potential strategy for
addressing the housing needs. Rackis replied that is up to the Commission. Vogel acknowledged
everything they do is just a recommendation to the Council, but if they can include that in the report as a
recommended strategy for addressing housing needs, that the City looks at a local source program to
increase the availability of vouchers for people on the waitlist, would that be appropriate.
Drabek said maybe they can do something like that, but it might make more sense to maybe work this up
a bit more, and perhaps add it as an agenda item to a future meeting. If they want to make that kind of
Housing and Community Development Commission
June 17, 2021
Page 4 of 8
4
recommendation it seems to be the sort of thing that they wouldn't want to just tack on to a report at the
last minute.
Thul agreed it's good to get different sides of an issue from others outside the room , so it would be better
to discuss it in the future and fully disclose it on the agenda so anyone who has opinions on it could come
and talk about it.
A vote was taken and the motion to recommend approval of the Iowa City Housing Authority
Annual Plan for FY21 was passed 8-0.
Thul will add an agenda item to discuss options and recommendations in more depth at another meeting.
PROJECT MONITORING:
HCDC invites CDBG and Home recipients to provide updates on project progress and learn about the
agency's role serving the community.
Simon Andrew (Executive Director, The Housing Fellowship) will provide an update on their projects with
highlights from FY19, FY20 and FY21 and will then give some commentary about their pandemic
response. Despite the pandemic with projects that were already in the pipeline, they grew their unit count
by 26% last year, which was of course not easy to do on the environment they were doing it. But they
made it through the year, increasing the amount of families that they can provide housing for, and in
some respects stabilizing themselves financially. Andrew next showed the list of their Board of Trustees
to highlight as part of their CHODO (Community Housing Development Organization) status and that they
have a broad range of folks represented on their Board. They have tenants on the Board, representatives
from low-income households, organizations that serve low-income families, attorneys, commercial
lenders, and developers and realtors as well. Having all that broad range provides invaluable resources
to make sure that they're able to provide the services that they need. Andrew next introduced their team
pointing out Tashundra Gathright, the compliance specialist, noting she's the best around at what she
does as they are tasked with making sure that they're compliant with all the rules. Looking at the
organizational structure, they're technically six different organizations and have 217 units total, they just
sold one last week. In the core nonprofit entity, The Housing Fellowship, there are 14 properties which
have been acquired or constructed with a number of funding sources. The other five organizations are all
low-income housing tax credit projects and when they undertake those projects they have to have a
private partner that puts in capital up front, and then they acquire or build these units and that partner
recoups their investment through federal tax.
Andrew next reviewed their projects, in the FY19 rental rehab, was there were four properties for projects
that were allocated, funding for three of those were completed in 2019. The fourth was planned to be
completed in 2020 but many of their construction projects, especially in occupied units, were delayed in
2020 due to the pandemic. So that property they expect will be done in 2021 as there are much needed
updates to that unit, it’s a tenant that's been with them for some time with children in the home. For the
FY20 rental rehab project, initially there were four properties in these allocated funds. The Cares Act, as
part of the federal government's pandemic response last year, changed the amount of dollars coming
through this project that could be used for operations so two of the homes that they planned to remodel
with these dollars were delayed and they were able to use those dollars to backfill some of their lost rent
from the pandemic and keep those families in their homes. The first one to be bid out is 427 1st Avenue,
and it needs a ton of work, it’s just around the corner from the old Hoover school, just down the block
from City High. It’s a great location and a great home but it's in pretty dilapidated condition. Again, that
has gone out to bid, they have received bids and plan to accept one and expect that to get done in this
summer. The other house in that fiscal year is Esther Court. That one has not been bid out yet, the
repairs necessary at the First Avenue one was such that they wanted to make sure that they had that one
bid out first because they expected that that one was going to take the lion's share of the funding. Both of
these homes have dollars from their nonprofit entity and then they are putting skin in the game for these.
Housing and Community Development Commission
June 17, 2021
Page 5 of 8
5
Additionally, there was money allocated from the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County too, so that is
one way that both homes can get done well and affordable is compiling enough funding sources. The
next rehab was delayed a little bit, on this one they were happy to be able to help out another nonprofit
organization. This is a duplex on Taylor Drive and the repairs to these units are not as extensive as some
others, besides the HVAC and water heater it's largely cosmetic repairs. However, after they obligated
funds for this project, the Fairweather Lodge experienced a fire, that's a Shelter House property that had
six tenants and was a total loss, so they allowed Shelter House to use this property for those six tenants.
The Shelter House now has a year to figure out whether they're rebuilding their previous property or
acquiring a different property for these clients, so as soon as they could undertake this project is March
2022. However, they felt it was really important help out another local nonprofit.
Andrew next discussed their pandemic response and added they were grateful for the operational dollars
that they got through their CHODO status. He did mention that early on in the pandemic they donated
four of their basic units to helped out the Domestic Violence Intervention Program who were trying to get
folks out of their group shelter in order to alleviate some risk for Coronavirus spread. He also wanted to
mention that they're currently working through a backlog of maintenance requests because over the
course of the last year they really have only been trying to go in occupied units when it was absolutely
necessary. So, for more minor repairs they do have a backlog of maintenance and again, that's where the
operational support really shows up in their units. They are also working closely with their tenants to apply
for the rental and utility assistance program that Sara Barron discussed and that has essentially become
the office manager’s full-time job. From that program they have had a number of tenants who have had
their past due balance paid but even after those approved requests, they still have over $170,000 in past
due rent and so by reallocating those project dollars to keep their operations going they were able to float
those tenants who are currently unable to pay has been critical. The delay in these rent assistance
dollars, the impact it has on the families cannot be understated, it has been really terrifying for a lot of the
families. He wanted to emphasize that just making sure families are able to stay current on their rent is
not all this program is doing, it also keeps operations going that allows them to pay contractors that they
need to work on homes and allows them to pay back the banks as they have close to $6 million in debt on
these homes and they need to keep current on those payments. They did have to go to quarterly
payments on a couple of insurance policies rather than paying a lump sum for an annual payment just on
based on cash flow.
Moving on to Del Ray Ridge, Andrew explained this is one of their LITEC projects and their biggest
project to date as an organization, it is a 33 unit building on Dubuque Street. With some scrambling they
were able to get it 100% leased out the week of the Christmas holiday last year because had they not met
that deadline that would have put some tax credits at risk that the nonprofit would have had to pay back to
the investing partner. Andrew noted it's a mixed income building, there are units everywhere from roughly
$300 up to closer to $1200. For those units that equates to 30% AMI up to four market rate units in that
building. As an organization they take very seriously, by and large, they are a scattered site housing
provider and like that their units are spread all over Johnson County and that they integrate very well into
neighborhoods. This is a single apartment building but they really do think that the economic integration is
an important piece for the tenants and the community school district as a whole. This building also has
five accessible units with accessible showers, bathrooms, kitchens, which is something that they also see
that the market very much needs. Hills Bank is their partner on this project, they provided $4.2 million
upfront to get this building going, to retire the construction loan debt, and over the course of the next 10
years they will see federal tax credits that recoup their investment. The City of Iowa City was also
instrumental in getting this project moving forward, as well as the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County,
as they provided the loan with which they bought the land initially.
Lastly, Andrew wanted to share it is not uncommon for them to get notes from their tenants, he wanted to
highlight this one note in particular as it came in a very stressful time, just as they were wrapping up Del
Ray Ridge and had a fear that they were going to owe a half a million dollars to refund tax credits, so it
was really nice to be to be thanked for their hard work. This particular tenant was bought out of her
previous lease, and their staff help her move and were able to get her in a very cold week when she was
afraid that she wasn't going to have anywhere else to go. Andrew stated they manage these properties,
Housing and Community Development Commission
June 17, 2021
Page 6 of 8
6
but without partners such as the City without federal dollars, Trust Fund and all their local partners, they
wouldn't be able to make this happen.
Alter thanked Andrew for the data driven work that he presented but also for humanizing and really
closing the presentation with the fact that this is all about people and their dignity. It is important to include
because it's the weight of all this work is so enormous but then it becomes so easy to make it mission
driven, when you see who you're helping. Andrew agreed and noted it is really easy in his role to get
bogged down.
Nkumu thanked Andrew for his nice presentation and had a question about the report of over $170,000 in
grants and wondered how many tenants apply for IFA program so they can recoup those losses. Andrew
replied currently they have roughly 70 applications to the program and eight have been paid out, which
mostly started last week, but as Sara Barron stated it's been moving more quickly than it did in the past
and HACAP staff have been very good to work with as it's helpful to have somebody locally that they're
familiar with who's actually reviewing the cases. Part of the reason why he thinks they're moving a little bit
quicker now is communication has improved, that database that they're using has improved a little bit, it's
still a heck of an application and a lot to ask folks for. Again, they have about 70 applications and many
more that they plan to submit. They started with the highest past due balances, back before this program
was even active, reaching out to tenants in January and February when they knew that this program was
coming. There were many initial frustrations when the program was rolled out, but again things are going
smoother now.
Mohammad thanked Andrew for providing such a nice and informative presentation. He stated he is
familiar with Section IIX and asked if this project works the same way as Section IIX or has some
differences in how to apply. Andrew stated they are a nonprofit entity but can be thought of as a typical
landlord, as a property owner manager, so they own and manage units that they've cobbled together over
the course of 30 years with some public dollars and private dollars, buying some homes or constructing
some homes, but they're the landlord. Section IIX is a payment that voucher holders can use to pay their
rent with any landlord willing to accept so they do have tenants that have vouchers, actually a good chunk
of their tenants do have vouchers, but they are not a government program, they’re a private nonprofit
Mohammad asked how people apply for this housing. Andrew explained similar to a typical landlord they
have a brief application stating who previous landlords were and they do a check back three years on
previous landlord references. They also have to know what the tenant’s household income is to make
sure that they're qualified to live in the units. Once they get through the landlord reference checks, in
most cases they are also required to do criminal background checks and once they get through that
process, they start looking at whatever vacant units they have that might meet that household’s needs.
They have everything from one-bedroom units up to five-bedroom houses. The lion's share of their homes
are two and three bedroom, either single family homes, duplexes, or townhomes.
Padron thanked Andrew for his presentation.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING STEERING COMMITTEE UPDATE FROM HCDC REPRESENTATIVE:
Nkumu suggested submitting a written update to the Commission, and then possibly picking it up next
time since he was having trouble with his audio.
IOWA CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS UPDATES:
Two Commissioners are assigned each month to monitor Council meetings and this agenda item
provides an opportunity for brief updates on City Council activity relevant to the HCDC business.
Commissioners will not engage in discussion with one another concerning said items.
Housing and Community Development Commission
June 17, 2021
Page 7 of 8
7
Thul noted they need to assign Commissioners to upcoming meetings if they still feel the Council updates
are useful.
Drabek stated he tends to find the updates useful and finds them most useful when they are narrowly
focused on the one or two agenda items that are about housing and least useful when they are a
summary of a lot of things that happened at the at the meeting.
Alter would agree with that and thinks that also it's entirely legit that if the meeting did not focus on things
that were relevant for the Commission, it can be reported it was an interesting meeting but nothing
relevant for this Commission and move on. It is useful to keep up with things that have made it to Council
and what's on the radar.
Kealey agreed but was one of those guilty ones that wasn't really sure what her role was so probably
shared extra things. She does find value when people are reporting on the Council meetings.
Padron stated then the need to find people for maybe the next three months. Drabek will do July, Alter
can do August and Mohammed will do September.
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION:
A special thank you to our outgoing commission members Maria Padron and Peggy Aguilar for their
service to the community.
Padron wanted to thank everyone and noted it has been great being in this commission. She will be
joining the Planning and Zoning Commission and her main interest is still going to be affordable housing
as she is very concerned about that topic. She believes combining code and planning and zoning and
what this Commission recommends to the Council, together could do great work.
Aguilar also thanked the members and noted being on the Commission has been so educational.
Thul also wanted to thank both Padron and Aguilar, this Commission is a big commitment, not only with
meetings but there's a lot of reading and extra time invested. At the next meeting will be welcoming two
new commissioners, Becci Reedus and Kaleb Beining and they will need to do officer nominations.
Regarding announcements, Erica Kubly is on maternity leave. The Little Creations Academy project is
under an agreement now and that’s moving forward. The City hired a new rehab specialist, Doug Black
and he will be doing lot of work in the South District program. HUD sent a notice that they retracted that
policy change that HCDC sent a letter about months back regarding Equal Access Rule. And last but not
least, Thul shared some of the Juneteenth events going on. More information located in the agenda
packets.
ADJOURNMENT:
Alter moved to adjourn. Vogel seconded the motion and a vote was taken and the motion passed 8-0.
Housing and Community Development Commission
June 17, 2021
Page 8 of 8
8
Housing and Community
Development Commission
Attendance Record 2020-2021
• Resigned from Commission
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Vacant
Name Terms Exp. 7/16 8/20 9/17 10/15 11/19 1/21 2/18 3/11 4/15 6/17
Aguilar, Peggy 6/30/22 O/E X X O/E O/E X X X O/E
Alter, Megan 6/30/21 X X O/E X X X X X X
Drabek, Matt 6/30/22 X X X O/E X X X X X
Kealey, Lyn Dee Hook 6/30/22 X X X O/E X O/E X X X
Lewis, Thersea 6/30/23 X X X X X X X X X
Mohammed, Nsar 6/30/23 X X O/E X X X X X O/E
Nkumu, Peter 6/30/22 O/E X O/E X X X X X O/E
Padron, Maria 6/30/21 X X O/E X O/E X X X X
Vogel, Kyle 6/30/23 X X X O/E X O/E X X X
Agenda Item #5
Date: August 12, 2021
To: Housing and Community Development Commission
From: Brianna Thul, Community Development Planner
Re: FY21 Little Creations Academy Kitchen Remodel (CDBG Public Facilities) located at 2929
E Court Street, Iowa City, Iowa
Little Creations Academy was awarded FY21 CDBG funds in the amount of $78,000 to remodel the
kitchen in the daycare facility, and the project is a year behind schedule. The City’s Unsuccessful or
Delayed Projects Policy requires that all CDBG projects enter an agreement by September 30, and
that a minimum of 50% of the assistance provided be expended by March 15. Pastor Anthony Smith of
Little Creation Academy attended the October 2020 and March 2021 HCDC meetings where progress
reports were provided. The relevant excerpts of the meeting minutes, the previous staff memo, and the
Unsuccessful and Delayed Projects Policy are attached for reference.
At the March meeting, HCDC agreed to allow the project to continue with the stipulation that progress
be reported back to the Commission on the SAM registration in April, and that Little Creations
Academy return to HCDC in May for an additional progress report. Little Creations Academy
completed the SAM registration process March 26, 2021. Due to changes in the summer HCDC
schedule, the next progress report was postponed to the August meeting.
Following the SAM registration, staff encountered issues obtaining a security instrument (such as a
lien or mortgage), which is required for public facilities projects. A letter was sent to Little Creations
Academy on May 18, 2021 stating that a security instrument is required for public facility projects to
ensure continued services to low to moderate income people through the compliance period of the
activity. The City has previously invested $109,000 in CDBG funds at this property with a compliance
period through June 30, 2027. The FY21 project award of $78,000 requires seven years of
compliance. If, for any reason, Little Creations Academy were to cease operations within the
compliance period of both projects, a total of $187,000 would need to be repaid to HUD and would no
longer benefit the community. Based on this information, three options were proposed to Little
Creations Academy:
1.Secure a lien, mortgage, or comparable security instrument by June 4, 2021 and proceed with
the project in its current form.
2.2. Submit a revised project budget to the City that reduces the amount of CDBG funding to less
than $25,000 by June 4, 2021 to proceed with the project without a security instrument.
3.Fund the project privately and provide written notice to the City that Little Creations Academy
longer plans to utilize FY21 CDBG funds by June 4, 2021.
Following the letter, a mortgage was secured June 2, 2021, and an agreement was entered June 8,
2021. To date, no CDBG funds have been expended on this project. Federal regulations at 24 CFR
570.902 require the City to expend CDBG funds in a timely manner. If timeliness requirements are not
met, HUD can reduce the annual grant allocation to the City.
HCDC will hear a progress report from Little Creations Academy as requested. Following the progress
report, staff request a recommendation from HCDC on how to proceed with the project. HCDC may
recommend the recapture and re-use of funds, and any recaptured funds may be added to
the upcoming mid-year funding round for affordable housing activities.
Agenda Item #6
March 11, 2021 HCDC Meeting Excerpt
Pages 2-4 of Minutes
UNSUCCESSFUL AND DELAYED PROJECTS CHECKPOINT:
Padron explained the City’s Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy requires that all CDBG projects
expend a minimum of 50% of the assistance provided by the proposed project by March 15 of each year.
HCDC will hear from the Little Creations Academy and determine whether extenuating circumstances
exist and if so, whether the project is anticipated to proceed. HCDC may recommend the recapture and
reuse of funds to City Council.
Anthony Smith (Little Creations Academy) gave an update on his project and said he is having a hard
time getting his DUNS application finished, he has tried several times ever since the month of August. He
does have his contractors in place but they can't do anything until he gets that application done. He had
just tried it again today to submit it and they cancelled my account, and then they had to resubmit it again,
but every time they resubmit it at least 10 days are needed for it to go through. He has been trying
August and is so frustrated and doesn’t know what to do.
Padron asked for clarification of if he is submitting the application and then are they rejecting the
application. Smith replied he first submitted the application in August and thought it was done but he got
a call from the City and was told they couldn't access it. So he went back and redid and it got rejected
because there wasn't a comma between Little Creations and Inc. He resubmitted it again and there was a
spelling error so it got kicked back again. He finally got on the telephone and asked them to walk him
through the process and it got rejected again because some information didn’t show up. He talked with
DUNS people and they said he had to wait 10 days. He is just so frustrated.
Padron asked how much of the of the funds had been already spent and how much do they have left to
spend. Smith replied he couldn't spend any of the funds because he couldn't do the report. The City can't
release the funds until they have access to the DUNS.
Kubly confirmed by March 15 they should have spent 50% of the funding but they’ve spent nothing so far
because they're not under agreement with this project yet because they can't enter into the agreement
until the application gets processed. She noted it does take a little time to set up and get the DUNS
number, they have to go to sam.gov and register and it's kind of a tricky process as Pastor Smith has
mentioned.
Padron asked if HCDC recaptures these funds and the City uses them for another project or to fund
another agency can in the meantime Pastor Smith finish processing that application and everything and
then reapply for more funding later this year when he's ready with that application and everything else.
Thul confirmed that could be an option but since they have more funding than applications right now, the
funding is not going to go to another project until they do another funding round.
Kealey asked if there is any resource that can help Pastor Smith get through this piece, is there someone
in the community that can help out. Thul said she has a video she can send and can also connect him
with another sub recipient that went through the same process. Smith said he looked at all the videos
and he did everything he was supposed to do, it has to be a system thing, not a procedural thing,
because the very people that do this are the ones that handheld him through the application.
Vogel asked about the timeline, if in 10 days Pastor Smith is successful and gets his Sam's number, or
code, what would be the timeline for him to spend 50% of the funds. Smith said the contractor already
set up. Vogel said then if they give him 45 days to come back and show that they've done the work, got
the code, got the contractor is that enough, or does he need 60 days or 90 days. Vogel is not
comfortable giving him a six-month extension in addition to the almost 300 days he’s already had, Vogel
is okay with another 90. Smith said he is not prepared to answer that question because he was having so
Agenda Item #6
many problems getting the approval he hasn’t talked to the contractor since the end of July. He has
already done the bidding process and has a contractor lined up.
Padron stated right now they need to focus on the application being approved so can they revisit this at
the next meeting in April to see if they got their application approved by April.
Padron asked if they recapture the funds when would those funds go to another project. Thul said they
would do a mid-year funding round in the fall and any unallocated funds will be available during that
funding round.
Alter noted when Pastor Smith came before them a couple of months ago to talk on progress at that time
he unfortunately had COVID and also there were some family issues. In this time of pandemic, it has
been a difficult period of time and that may explain why there is a longer lag right now. Smith admitted he
has been a rough time, he wasn’t going to bring it up because he was trying to keep this professional but
his family has had their share of instances, his brother had COVID and died, his mother had COVID and
two weeks ago his dad died.
Nkumu stated obviously it's no fault of Pastor Smith that the process is not working, it sounds like he's
doing everything he can to submit the application but that is a technical issue that he has no control over.
If the City were to recapture funds could Little Creations continue to try to get the DUNS process
completed. Thul confirmed they could, and in the future she is hoping to have organizations start the
DUNS process earlier to avoid such issues.
Vogel noted since they don't have anybody that's in serious needs of these funds right now, it seems like
there is no need to recoup these funds. He like to make a motion that they extend Little Creation
Academy's timeline to provide the 50% and proof of project viability to the May meeting which would give
them enough time to get the DUNS application, get the funds release, get the contractor started, get two
or three weeks’ worth of work in and potentially be able to come back and show movement on this.
Lewis asked if it’s not completed by May then would that recommendation be to reallocate the funds.
Vogel said that would be a decision made at the May meeting.
Kealey said it would be nice for Pastor Smith to come back in a month and give them an update on where
he is and they could go from there hoping that he will have the Sam's stuff taken care of. However she is
okay with what Vogel has proposed, to wait until May to see if there is progress and agreed there has
been extenuating circumstances.
Padron wanted to make an amendment to the motion and have HCDC receive an email or some kind of
notification from Pastor Smith at the April meeting, just stating where he's at. Vogel second that friendly
amendment.
Vogel motioned to allow the FY21 Little Creations Academy public facilities project to move
forward with the understanding that the subrecipient will be required to report to the Commission
again on May 20, 2021 with documented progress, and that the subrecipient will provide a written
update on the SAM registration status to the Commission at the April 15, 2021 meeting. The
motion was seconded by Lewis, a vote was taken and it passed 9-0.
Date: March 5, 2021
To: Housing and Community Development Commission
From: Brianna Thul, Community Development Planner
Re: FY21 Little Creations Academy Kitchen Remodel (CDBG Public Facilities) located at
2929 E Court Street, Iowa City, Iowa
Little Creations Academy was awarded FY21 CDBG funds in the amount of $78,000 to remodel
the kitchen in the daycare facility. The project is behind schedule due to outstanding monitoring
requests that must be completed prior to entering an agreement with the City. Little Creation
Academy attended the October 2020 Housing and Community Development Commission
meeting where a progress report was provided by Pastor Anthony Smith. An excerpt from the
minutes of this meeting is attached.
Staff made the initial monitoring request on July 21, 2020 and has made regular attempts since
then. Little Creations provided the requested documentation on February 2, 2021 following an
email reminder from staff. A majority of the monitoring items have now been submitted. The
final item that must be completed before entering into an agreement for the project is
registration in the federal System for Awards Management (SAM) database. This process
has been initiated by Little Creations, but is incomplete at this time. Registration in the
SAM database is required for all direct federal funding subrecipients.
The City’s Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy requires that all CDBG projects expend a
minimum of 50% of the assistance provided for the proposed project by March 15 each year.
HCDC will hear a progress report from Little Creations Academy. Following the progress report,
staff request a recommendation from HCDC on how to proceed with the project. HCDC may
recommend the recapture and re-use of funds, or permit the project to move forward should
extenuating circumstances exist. If funds are recaptured, staff would likely use the
funds in another competitive funding round in the future.
Agenda Item #6
March 5, 2021
Page 2
October 25, 2020 HCDC Meeting Excerpt
(Pages 2-3 of Minutes)
DISCUSS CDBG PROJECTS WITHOUT AGREEMENTS:
Gabel explained that the Unsuccessful and Delayed Projects Policy on page 26 of the packet is related to
timeliness requirements from HUD. The City can only have 1.5 times the grant amount in the line of credit
to be considered timely. Expending CDBG dollars quickly is important to avoid HUD recapturing any
funds. Kubly confirmed. Gabel stated that only one FY21 CDBG project does not have an agreement at
this point and that is the Little Creations Academy kitchen rehab project. Gabel noted that Pastor Anthony
Smith is on the call to provide a project update.
Smith stated that he accepts responsibility for the project being behind and that he still needs to finish
paperwork for the City before they can enter an agreement. Smith shared that this year has had many
COVID-19 and family issues, and that he plans to have the paperwork completed by the end of the month
and the project started in November.
Padron asked staff what HCDC needs to decide about the project and where the project can go from
here.
Kubly stated HCDC will make a recommendation to allow the project to proceed or take action if they
don’t feel the project can successfully proceed with the delay.
Padron stated she would like to have Commissioners weigh in with their thoughts.
Nkumu asked if this is the first time this project has been behind because he remembers previous issues
with Little Creations Academy.
Kubly stated that the FY18 project for Little Creations Academy also came to HCDC to request additional
funds, but that it was a separate project.
Smith stated that the FY18 project being behind was not his fault as he could not find a contractor to
complete the work. If it had not been for the city he would not have been able to find a contractor.
Lewis asked how HCDC will review progress in the future.
Kubly responded that the next checkpoint for the project will be in March and that 50% of funds should be
expended at that point.
Alter asked if Smith thinks he can meet the next project checkpoint in March and have 50% of the funds
expended.
Smith confirmed that he can.
Mohammed stated that he understood that this year has had additional challenges and that he is
comfortable proceeding with the project.
Padron noted that she works with contractors in her job and that they are experiencing shortages of
construction materials currently, and suggested considering that with respect to the timeline for the
project.
Alter motioned to recommend continuation of the Little Creations Academy kitchen rehab project with the
understanding that 50% of the funds should be expended by the second checkpoint in March. Lewis
seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
Agenda Item #6
Housing and Community Development Commission
Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy
Adopted by City Council March 2, 2004 in Resolution 04-68
From time to time there may be Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and/or
HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) projects that do not meet the anticipated
schedule for implementation as presented to the Housing and Community Development
Commission (HCDC). These circumstances may be due to unforeseen events (e.g.
unfunded applications for other financing).
HCDC recognizes the need to utilize CDBG, HOME and other funding as effectively and
efficiently as possible to meet the needs of low-moderate income household for housing,
jobs and services within Iowa City.
To assist HCDC in evaluating a project’s status and ability to proceed the following policy
is hereby adopted to begin with Fiscal Year ’04 projects beginning July 1, 2003:
1.All CDBG and HOME projects will have entered into a formal agreement with the
City of Iowa City for the utilization of federal funds by September 30 each year.
Should a recipient fail to meet this threshold, the project will be reviewed by
HCDC to evaluate if extenuating circumstances exist. If extenuating
circumstances exist and it is anticipated the project will proceed, a new
timeline will be established for the completion of the project. If
circumstances do not warrant an extension of time, HCDC may recommend
the recapture and re-use of the funds to the City Council.
2.All CDBG projects (except applicants for LIHTCs) will have expended a minimum
of fifty percent (50%) of the assistance provided for the proposed project by March
15 each year. This provides the recipient with approximately 255 days following
the start of the fiscal year to reach this threshold for CDBG projects. All HOME
projects will expend their funds on a timely basis per the applicable HOME
regulation. Should a recipient fail to meet these thresholds, all unexpended
CDBG/HOME funding will be recaptured by the City of Iowa City and
recommendations be made by the HCDC for re-use of the funds or HCDC may
allow the recipient to retain the funds for the previously approved project.
3.If housing projects are applying for other funds through various state or federal
agencies, the recipient must apply for those funds in the first available application
period offered. Should a recipient fail to meet this application threshold, all
CDBG/HOME funding will be recaptured by the City of Iowa City and
recommendations be made by the HCDC for re-use of the funds.
4.Should a recipient be unsuccessful in obtaining the funds listed in the application
in the application round immediately following the allocation of local CDBG\HOME
funds, and the project will not be able to proceed without the aforementioned
funds, all CDBG/HOME funds will be recaptured by the City of Iowa City and
recommendations be made by the HCDC for re-use of the funds or HCDC may
allow the recipient to retain the funds for the previously approved project. If the
project is unsuccessful in obtaining the required funds listed in the application after
two consecutive funding rounds following the allocation of local CDBG/HOME
funds, the City of Iowa City will recapture all CDBG/HOME funds.
Agenda Item #6
Affordable Housing Steering Committee Update
Greetings fellow commissioners,
I apologize for not being able to provide an update of AHSC meetings yesterday due to technical issues I
was having with my zoom connection. As your representative in the Steering Committee, it is my duty to
report back to you what is happing so far.
The committee is made up of 12 members drawn from a diverse group of local people with a lot of
expertise and background in affordable housing issues. The committee meet via zoom once a month and
the first meeting happened in February with the goal of wrapping up everything by September or
October.
In the first couple of months, we spent time reviewing Housing data, existing Programs and Policies and
forming subcommittees. After the review of data and existing programs and policies, committee
members were asked to express their view on keeping or dropping specific programs or policies with
specific recommendations. Last month, a compilation of all opinions and recommendations from
committee’s members was presented and discussed. All programs and policies were reviewed and
specific recommendations were made. One particular program that drew comments from most
members of the committee is the CDBG/HOME Programs.
I did check with Tracy Hightshoe and the City Manager if I can share this information with you and they
said yes because it is public information and this is only recommendations, not final resolutions
approved by the City Counsel.
Here are issues members cited with how HCDC allocates housing funds.
1.The ranking process is not objective
2.Commission members have various levels of expertise/understanding of housing issues, some
have no background in housing
3.The scores are not consistent among members and the final scores are a guide. Commission
members do not have to fund based on final scores.
4.Allocations don’t follow the Council approved comprehensive plan for priorities and , at times,
commission members ignore or discount staff concerns for capacity, compliance and program
issues. Staff administers these programs and have extensive knowledge on compliance, program
rules and process. Commission makeup changes annually.
5.Members are meeting with non-profits to get more familiar with services. Question the
sustainability or effectiveness due to commission turnover.
Suggestions: more in-depth orientation about the process, established priorities, and compliance issues.
Allow agencies to respond to questions outside of their Q/A session. Recommendation was made that
similar to Planning, Zoning, and other commissions, staff provide a funding recommendation and HCDC
then reviews and considers for approval or modification.
Agenda Item #8
The next step in our process is to determine which programs/policies the subcommittee, which I am part
of, will look at more in depth and report back to the full committee. There are seven subcommittees
created to look at different things such Existing Program/Policies, Development Regulations
(Zoning/Code), Public Outreach, Affordable Housing Resources (public/private), Recommendations :0-
30% MI, Recommendations : 31-60% MI, Recommendations : 61-100% MI
Besides subcommittees work, there will be Public input sessions before compiling all
recommendations/data from subcommittees follow by drafting of report, committee review/comment
and finally the release of final plan to City Council.
Thank you
Peter Nkumu
HCDC Commissioner/ Affordable Housing Steering Committee Member
Preliminary Recommendations and Concerns from a Subcommittee of
the Affordable Housing Steering Committee
The following are initial ideas from a subcommittee of the Affordable Housing Steering
Committee. The items below have not been finalized by the Steering Committee as a whole.
The Steering Committee would like input about these concerns/recommendations before they
finalize and present to Council this fall.
1.Affordable Housing Location Model
Discontinue. Focus on incentivizing projects/development in neighborhoods and areas that
offer relevant amenities, access to public transit, etc.
2.HCDC
Restructure the process to prioritize staff recommendations and scores.
•The Commission’s review and ranking should be based on objective and established
criteria, priorities, and data and staff scores should be included.
•Policy should be developed upfront as to how funds will be allocated to further
improve transparency in decision-making (e.g. full funding to top-rated applications,
or applications will be pro-rated, or partial funding to applicants based on scores,
etc.).
3.Affordable Housing Distribution Model
The overall funding should be increased with consideration given not indexing the increase
to the budget.
•Increased funding for the HTFJC including an increase in the administrative set
aside.
•Allow for greater flexibility in targeted use of funds for example:
o Prioritize deeply affordable housing (0-30%) but do not restrict to the use
o Include LIHTC funding with the HTFJC allocation. However, set as a
preferred use but not restricted/required. If funding is awarded to LIHTC
project and the project does not get funding from IFA, allow HTFJC withdraw
award and make available for general applications rather than waiting for the
next LIHTC cycle.
•Maintain Security Deposit Assistance and prioritize moving forward with Risk
Mitigation Fund
•Increase marketing and communications of availability of the different funds.
•Review specific programs in the affordable housing distribution model to ensure they
match desired policy outcomes.
•Consider establishing policy for preservation of affordable units and value added with
collaborations with not-for-profit affordable housing developers.
Agenda Item #8
City of Iowa City
FY22 Mid-Year Funding Round
Tentative Timeline
Dates Subject to Change
August 10,
2021
CDBG/HOME applications are available.
By Appointment Assistance for CDBG/HOME applicants is available until August 31, 2021. Contact
Brianna Thul at 319-356-5240 or brianna-thul@iowa-city.org for assistance.
August 31,
2021
CDBG / HOME Applications due to City of Iowa City by 12pm noon.
September 16,
2021
HCDC meeting: question and answer discussion with applicants. Applicants are invited
to attend.
October 1,
2021
HCDC ranking forms due to City staff.
October 21,
2021
HCDC meeting: review of groupings and consensus funding scenario. Make award
recommendation.
November 1,
2021
30-day comment period begins for Substantial Amendment #1 to FY22 Annual Action
Plan.
November 15,
2021
CDBG / HOME Financial Verification Applications due.
November 18,
2021
HCDC meeting: review Substantial Amendment #1 and consider recommendation to City
Council.
November 30,
2021
30-day comment period ends for Substantial Amendment #1 to FY22 Annual Action Plan.
December 7,
2021
City Council: public meeting for Substantial Amendment #1 to FY22 Annual Action Plan.
December 10,
2021
Substantial Amendment #1 to FY22 Annual Action Plan submitted to HUD.
Agenda Item #9
FY22 Iowa City CDBG and HOME Applicant Guide 5
CDBG/HOME EVALUATION CRITERIA
Points
I. Goal Priority (max. 10 points)
1 How well has the applicant documented the ability of the project to
meet a primary goal identified in City Steps 2025?
0-10 Points
II. Leveraging Resources/Budget (max. 35 points)
1 Does the project have realistic cost estimates? 0-5 Points
2 Does the project leverage community partnerships and/or volunteer
resources?
0-5 Points
3 Does the project leverage other financial resources? Guide:
0-25% = 0-6 pts
26-50% = 7-12 pts
51-75% = 13-19 pts
76-99% = 20-25 pts
Subtotal
III. Feasibility/Community Impact (max. 40 points)
1 What primary percent of median income persons are targeted? Guide:
0-30%=20 pts
31-50%=15 pts
51-60%=10 pts
61-80%=2 pts
2 Will the project assist any specific vulnerable populations? 0-5 Points
3 Does the project have a reasonable per-person/unit cost compared to
other projects of similar scope?
0-5 Points
4 Does the project schedule adequately demonstrate the project will be
completed within the required time period?
0-5 Points
5 Does the project provide a long-term solution to the need identified? 0-5 Points
Subtotal
IV Capacity/History (max. 15 points)
1 Has the applicant demonstrated it can successfully complete projects
and that the current request is necessary? (i.e. past projects are
substantially complete)
0-5 Points
2 Does the organization have the capacity to complete the project based
on current description of staff?
0-5 Points
3 Does the organization’s activities and portfolio provide evidence of
ability to undertake the project as described?
0-5 Points
Maximum Points: 100 TOTAL:
Bonus: Is public facilities project documented in City Steps 2025? 5 Points
Agenda Item #9